Plato And Phadeo Analysis

Again, Plato is addressing the idea that a person's inner virtues are worth more than the circumstances that attempt to govern him. In The Republic, Plato moves to have Socrates debate the multitude of traits that can lead to a “just” man who can really live the good life. “The happiest man is he who is first in goodness and justice, namely the true king who is also king over himself.” (Plato) In view of this quote, Plato is making the affirmation the ideal life of prosperity is only achieved through holding true to one’s self. All of these writings come from the logic of what is judged, not by

Materialistic desires can be defined as any non-essential item one owns. And lastly, a noble life is a life full of purpose and adherence to said purpose or purposes. Socrates’s argument rests upon two essential premises. One, that truth, self-discovered wisdom, logic, and reason are the most important aspects of life. And secondly, that one should forgo material desires and concern over reputation for the sake of the first premise.

Virtue is important when people consider their own characters: virtues are what defines a person, what they stand for, what they believe in. The argument made here is that virtue is a type of knowledge, as Plato states in Meno. In Meno, Socrates and Meno talk about how virtue is not a type of knowledge, up until they describe it. Socrates says, “If then virtue is something in the soul and it must be beneficial, it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but accompanied by wisdom or folly they become harmful or beneficial.” (88c4-88d2) Wisdom is necessary for the characteristics of the soul, such as that brashness is a result of courage without wisdom, and because an understanding is necessary to have virtue, it is a characteristic of

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates utilizes logical dialogue with his fellow Athenians to uncover the timeless and elusive ideal of justice. The dilemma begins to surface in book II through Glaucon’s challenging that justice is not inherently, but rather consequentially good. Socrates argues that justice is among the highest of virtues that are both consequentially and intrinsically good, individually defining it as the harmony of the tripartite soul: the balance between reason, appetite, and spirit (132). Upon further investigation, however, Socrates’ assertion not only fails to refute Glaucon’s argument for people’s reluctance toward justice, but he is also unsuccessful in outlining the innate worth behind the ideal. Nonetheless, Socrates’ endeavor

He builds up to his final claim by first eliminating what justice cannot be, and then determining what aspects make justice a virtue. Firstly, Plato states it is never just to harm anyone, even if they truly are one’s enemy; if that were the case, justice would make others more unjust, and that defies itself (335d-e). Secondly, Plato denies that justice is law in the interest or advantage of the stronger. Rulers are not perfect, and often make laws to the advantage of those other than themselves (347d-e). Plato’s most controversial claim, however, is that justice is not the law at all, and even goes beyond the law.

3) Rachels talks about a well-known idea that right living consists in respect to God’s commands. 4) Rachels argues that we should be as good as we can be to escalate our chances of eternal. 5) Rachels talks about the Divine Command Theory, which is an action is morally correct if it is directed by God. 6) Socrates’ argues against the Divine Command Theory also he concludes that right or wrong of one’s actions cannot be understood in terms of their compliance to divine commands. 8) Kant states that if Gods doesn’t exist, then the universe is incomplete immoral, due to that virtue will be unrewarded and wickedness will not be punished.

And if an individual performs noble actions towards others then they can reach happiness, but only if those actions are performed with the “help of instruments, as it were: friends, wealth, and political power” (p.54). Aristotle explains that happiness consists in living in accordance with reason. Aristotle, “first starts by explaining that the “soul consists of two elements, one irrational and one rational” (p.58). Then on page 59 he states that “in morally strong and morally weak men we

For example, given Plato’s logic a painting isn’t beautiful because of brush strokes and the meticulous placement of them, yet it is because the painting holds the essence of beauty and participates in the form of beauty. However, given difference of opinion not everyone will find the painting beautiful, and so how are innate forms classified and when? Another question being as to when the soul leaves the body. For example, if a heart is still beating while the brain is dead does the body still carry the essence of immortality and thus the soul? While we may never know, I still find Plato’s explanations vacuously platitudinous, hardly truly giving an explanation at all and instead to be grasping at straws to ease Socrates own fears of death before execution within the

Socrates shows that the three parts of the soul, reason, thumos, and appetites must work in harmony much like the city to achieve optimal success. Only through harmony can the soul just. When the soul is just, the body can function properly as a whole. At this point, the quest for knowledge can be achieved. Through knowledge, one can ultimately achieve the good.

the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame